Mcclain`s Contact Still A Mystery

October 29, 1986|By Dean Baquet.

A key question left unanswered by an internal investigation of City Hall corruption is which top city official worked behind the scenes to help controversial businessman Clarence McClain influence a multimillion-dollar city contract.

The mystery centers on former mayoral aide Ira Edelson`s insistence that in November, 1984, as he was about to award a contract to Datacom Systems Corp., an unidentified ``high-ranking city official`` contacted him and said McClain doubted Datacom could do the job.

That contact--it is unclear whether it was by telephone or in person--set in motion a series of events that delayed for nearly two months the city`s decision to award Datacom a contract to collect overdue parking fines. Those events were apparently intended to steer the contract to Systematic Recovery Service Inc., a New York company that had secretly hired McClain to lobby city officials, according to sources familiar with McClain`s activities.

Identifying the official would shed light on how McClain continued to wield influence long after resigning a top administration post.

McClain, who resigned in 1983 after disclosures that he has three misdemeanor vice convictions, reportedly is the target of a federal investigation centering on alleged bribery by Systematic Recovery.

Edelson, a successful accountant who had donated his time as the mayor`s chief financial adviser, reportedly has given federal investigators the name of the official who contacted him.

Former U.S. Atty. Thomas Sullivan, who ran the internal city investigation, tried to find out who contacted Edelson, sources familiar with Sullivan`s inquiry said. But Edelson refused to tell him.

Sullivan declined comment, but the sources said he tried to find out whether Mayor Harold Washington or other present and former city officials, including former Corporation Counsel James Montgomery, knew the official`s identity.

It is not known what Washington said to Sullivan; his spokesman, Alton Miller, did not return repeated telephone calls Tuesday.

Montgomery`s lawyer, Adam Bourgeois, would make no comment. Nor would Edelson`s lawyer, Robert M. Stephenson. McClain has refused to discuss the case.

In January, The Tribune reported that Edelson was surprised that a private citizen like McClain could be involved the award of a major contract. Nonetheless, Edelson told Sullivan he met with McClain about five times to discuss his reservations about Datacom. During these meetings, in late 1984, McClain reportedly warned Edelson that a private consultant report was coming out critical of Datacom.

McClain told Edelson that he could get the report from Systematic Recovery officials in New York, a source familiar with Edelson`s account said. McClain eventually set up a meeting between Edelson and the Systematic Recovery officials, who gave Edelson part of the report, the source said.

After that meeting, Edelson, upset by McClain`s involvement and suspicious of the report, began lobbying for Datacom, according to the source. The city signed a contract with Datacom in January, 1985, two months after city officials first selected the company.

In his report, made public last week, Sullivan concluded that the delay was ``attributable in substantial part to McClain`s influence.``